It has been said that a problem is not a problem until you give it credibility. The best example of this is the recent uproar over college mascots: They are never a problem until people decide to make them a problem. Taking offense to college mascots only proves that some people spend way too much time being offended.

Just last week, San Diego State University began another set of meetings and councils concerning the unveiling of a new mascot. Apparently, the politically correct Ambassador Montezuma didn’t work out like the university had planned.

Ambassador Montezuma is unpopular, not because it accurately depicts traditional Aztec culture, but rather because it has failed to do what a mascot is supposed to do: It does not encourage school spirit. In fact, it had the opposite effect, because most students were annoyed that it was merely an appeasement to the activists who were pressuring the school.

The complaints began in late 1999, when the SDSU Native American Student Alliance complained that mascot Monty Montezuma was offensive to anyone of Aztec descent. They demanded a new school mascot. Though SDSU kept the Aztecs, it destroyed Monty, which had been the mascot since 1941.

The problem does not stop with SDSU. Schools across the nation have been under attack for mascots ranging from Native Americans to the “”satanic”” Red Devils of the Nebo High School District in Utah.

The argument is that any mascot depicting a culture or race insults that group by making its image into a caricature. This is racist, according to the activist groups. Therefore, they say, schools should eliminate mascots that offend particular cultures.

This argument is a waste of time to college students who, it is hoped, have much better things to do.

School mascots serve two purposes, neither of which is intended to insult any culture. The first is the official mascot symbol: This is the picture usually accompanying official university documents, and it is symbolic of the strength and dignity of the school.

Anyone who has seen UCSD’s mascot knows there is a big difference between the version at basketball games and the version on our transcripts. The official mascot of UCSD is a powerful-looking, steel-stomached Greek god wielding a trident. This image is supposed to elicit feelings of pride, strength, ability and other virtues only expressible through mermen clutching large pole arms. It purports nothing to insult ancient Greek culture, but instead praises one of its characters.

In turn, SDSU’s official mascot does the same thing. It is not Monty Montezuma, per se, but a muscular warrior with shield and ornate headdress — another symbol of pride and strength.

A school doesn’t pick a mascot to disgrace its school or to insult anyone. It is an uphill battle to maintain or create school pride — no university would choose a mascot that causes everyone to hate the school. A school’s mascot is never supposed to be a disgrace, but a symbol of pride and achievement.

How often do UCLA alumni refer to themselves as Bruins? Nearly all the time. Even the Banana Slugs of UC Santa Cruz have great pride in their mascot. Sweaters that state “”100 percent real slug”” are a valued commodity. In fact, UC Santa Cruz’s mascot was the sea lion until the students voted it down in favor of the slugs. When school mascots ruin school spirit, schools eliminate the mascots and promptly replace them.

The second purpose a mascot serves — and a more controversial issue — is to be a presence at athletic events. Those mascots, admittedly, are generally more likely to be caricatures. They often attempt to draw attention to themselves by using a vast array of comic devices. Our own athletic mascot is definitely less awe-inspiring than the official depiction.

However, it is not a sleight to a culture to depict a caricature of that culture. Athletic events have to instill a sense of fun and excitement, not grim pride or Marine Corps loyalty. In fact, to caricature figures is to lend them status and respect. Even if someone such as a politician faces strong opposition, a caricature is an admittal that the person matters and deserves attention.

In the same sense, the caricature of Monty Montezuma is not an insult to the Aztecs, but an acknowledgment that it represents a culture that deserves recognition. Obviously, those who picked the Aztec as a mascot thought the Aztec was an admirable figure.

In response to all this controversy, a group of Native Americans at the University of Northern Colorado recently decided to attack the college system by creating an intramural basketball team of which the mascot was “”The Fighting Whites.”” This mascot depicted a middle-aged white man in a suit, an image used often in the 1950s.

The name became an instant favorite, especially among white students. T-shirts depicting the mascot became popular. The entire political statement backfired, merely because students did not care. Potentially, this statement could have posed an offensive message to white students. However, students opted to not make an issue out of it, and instead it became a trend.

The Fighting Irish of the Univeristy of Notre Dame have a proud history, despite their extremely goofy portrayal through the image of an ugly leprechaun bracing for a bar brawl. The Irish-American culture does not seem to mind. Why? A Fighting Irishman is a symbol of pride, not disgrace. More importantly, the Irish community does not care — it’s only a mascot, and it inspires spirit in the students.

Some will argue that if a mascot offends a group of people, it’s better just to change it. This is an argument that would cause every school to constantly walk on eggshells. People will always be offended by something; if people backed off every time someone was offended, nothing would ever get done. Activist groups would certainly never get anything done. Their actions offend the majority of university students who actually take pride in their mascots. If this is the case, whose damaged pride takes priority?

When anyone gives credibility to an issue that is not yet problematic, they automatically make it problematic. To become insulted by a mascot is making a big deal about something that has a relatively trivial meaning. In the end, it is really not a matter of insult, but rather the amount of time that people are willing to spend searching for insults in unlikely places.

It seems to me that there are much better things to do with one’s time than attack Monty Montezuma as a hallmark of the defilement of minority culture.